Page images
PDF
EPUB

Dr. C.'s translation and paraphrase be correct, it is clear that his canon is worse than useless.

Nor, on the other hand, is there any satisfactory evidence that the insertion of the articles gives eminence to the sense of the appellation. From the structure and connexion of several passages where it occurs without either article, especially in the history of our Lord's condemnation, there is every reason to decide in favour of its highest conceivable signification. And, though the early ecclesiastical writers commonly employ both articles, yet, in their works, there are not a few examples of the anarthous title where it is impossible that any inferior sense could have been contemplated. Upon the whole, therefore, it is evident that we must seek some other mode of illustrating the subject; and, in the absence of more efficient aid, perhaps the following remarks may not be deemed inappropriate.

The divine titles of the New Testament partake of a twofold character, and in their grammatical relations are determined by two classes of rules. In some instances, they are employed as proper names; in others, as appellatives only. This is especially illustrated in the use of the word, Kúpios, Lord. Properly, it is an appellative, and, whether applied to the Father or to Christ, indicates authority and dominion. In this sense it takes the article, o kúpuoç. Where the article is omitted, unless its absence is referrible to some grammatical necessity, the term is generally to be regarded as a proper name. By the LXX. this is its most common form, as equivalent to the incommunicable names of Jehovah and Jah. This usage is sometimes followed by the New Testament writers, and, did not the title belong to the mediatorial authority, would probably be their invariable rule.

Thus again Christ was originally an appellative; and hence, in the early parts of the New Testament, it takes the article ò Xplorós, where it certainly should be rendered, THE Christ. But when it came to be appropriated to our Lord, it did not, in ordinary cases, require the article, since it was now a proper

name.

The propriety of this usage will appear, if we consider the nature and design of the article. It is usually equivalent to the relative pronoun, with the participle denoting existence or

G

designation understood. Thus ὁ κύριος signifes ὁ ὢν κύριος, he who is Lord; ὁ χριστὸς stands for ὁ ὢν, or ὁ λεγόμενος χρ., he who is, or who is called, the anointed. As in the person of our Redeemer there existed two natures, and as there is no term under which both could specifically be included, so it was to be expected that, in general, his names and titles would be employed with the article. Its omission would be inaccurate, for example, in the designation " Son of man,” which is purely an appellative, since it would thus be left uncertain whether he were any thing but "Son of man." Hence, with one exception, Christ invariably calls himself, not viòç ávíρúñov, but ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, he who is Son of man, who appears in a human form; by which the sense is so far left open, as to admit of the superadded notion, that he is something which this title does not include. But the more common appellations of our Saviour came in time to be regarded as inclusive of his complex nature, and thus the necessity ceased for any such accuracy of discrimination. The presence or omission of the article was therefore determined rather by the purpose of the speaker or writer, than by any peculiarity in the designation which might be employed.

In its natural acceptation, "Son of God" is an appellative title; and hence it commonly takes the articles. In the second class of passages cited above, the omission of the former article is determined by grammatical reasons, and but for these, as the retention of the latter appears to indicate, both would probably have been used. As far as the sense is concerned, therefore, the terms υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ may be regarded as identical. Thus, in by far the larger proportion of cases, it will appear that the phrase retains its purely appellative nature. Hence we gather, that it is not to be considered as a comprehensive title, descriptive of our Lord's entire complex person; but as used in respect to a particular aspect of his character, and so coming under the same rules of interpretation as the appellative "Son of man."

The third class of passages are properly exceptions to this usage. It is true that in these instances the absence of the former article may be explained on grammatical grounds; but these are insufficient to account for the omission of the latter. Nor indeed are they of such force, but that in several cases,

had the occasion demanded, both articles might have been employed. Here therefore the title ceases to be an appellative, and becomes, in fact, a proper name.

This mode of expression, it will be remarked, is exclusively Jewish. Twice it occurs in the annunciation, which, as addressed to a Jewish maiden, would of course be conveyed in the national phraseology; once in the confession after the miracles on the lake; in other examples, in connexion with our Lord's condemnation; and, finally, in the exordium to the Epistle to the Romans; a composition addressed principally to Jews and Jewish proselytes. With the exception of the last instance, it belongs only to the historical part of the New Testament; being found in the narratives of the sayings of others, and not in the statements of the writer himself. These facts go to show that the Jewish sense of the title was precise and exclusive, and so confirm the conclusions at which we have already arrived. The doctrine thus conveyed was correct; it is true that our Lord was viòç Oɛoỡ: but subsequently to the incarnation it was partial and.incomplete; since by that event he became è viòç roỡ Đɛoỡ, he who is God's Son. The former phrase, therefore, is to be regarded as belonging to the intermediate period of the two dispensations, and as one of the terms of Jewish theology which lingered on the morning of a more expansive era.

This subject may be advantageously summed up by a contrast between the use of the title under consideration and the common official designation of our Lord. Before the advent of our Redeemer, "Gon's SON" (viòç Oεov) was a proper name, because appropriated exclusively to a purely divine person. With this view, Gregory Nazianzen remarks, “SON is the PROPER NAME of him whose generation is without beginning:” (Τὸ ΙΔΙΟΝ [ΟΝΟΜΑ] τοῦ ἀνάρχως γεννηθέντος, 'Y'IO. Orat. 36, T. i., p. 590:) and we may thus perhaps more fully account for the peculiarity of the terms in the annunciation. But after the incarnation, because assigned to a complex nature, it became an appellative, and as such took the articles.

On the other hand, the Christ was originally an appellative, because contemplating, not personality, but character. But when He was manifested to whom it rightly belonged, and in

whom terminated all former typical unctions,—to intimate the exclusiveness of its application, and the comprehensiveness of its meaning, it was generally disused in its original form, and became a proper name. In the writings of the Greek fathers, we commonly find these titles employed according to their evangelical sense. But in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, there are frequent examples of the Jewish usage. Thus he says of our Lord, "Being THE Christ, and existing as God and God's Son.” (Ρ. 411, ὢν Ὁ Χριστὸς, καὶ Θεὸς, Θεοῦ υἱὸς ὑπάρχων.) Upon the subject of the latter part of this note, the reader may advantageously consult Bishop Middleton on the article, passim.

SECTION IV.

PRETERNATURAL TESTIMONIES то JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD.

It is the design of the present section to examine the evidence supplied by spiritual beings, good and evil. This consists of testimonies from God, both immediate and mediate, and of confessions from impure spirits. It is arranged under the general head of Jewish theology, upon the principle that the sense of all communications is determined, not by abstract fitness, real or supposed, but by the apprehensions of the individuals to whom they are addressed. Admitting the Jewish interpretation of the title "Son of God" to have been inappropriate, still its unqualified employment to a Jewish auditory could produce but one impression. In all such cases the inquiry is, not what a phrase ought to signify, but what is the signification with which the mind of the hearer is prepared; and that being ascertained, the exposition is determined beyond controversy. This is the lowest view of which the case will admit.

A little reflection, however, will be sufficient to convince us, that this alone is inadequate to the subject of our investigation. Upon the nativity of Jesus, the fact was proclaimed by an angel in these precise terms:"Unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is CHRIST THE LORD."* But all other audible testimonies from spiritual agents on the person of our Redeemer, were to the fact of the divine Sonship.†

* Luke ii. 11.

+ This remark will perhaps allow of one exception. In Mark i. 24, and the parallel passage, Luke iv. 34, our Lord is by an evil

« PreviousContinue »